JUDGMENT 1. Though this appeal has come up from the defect side for condonation of delay as it is barred by 109 days and supported by an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, we have heard the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State on merits of the appeal as well. 2. Admitted facts of the case as arise from the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 12.12.2008 are that one Ajit Singh, husband of the respondent Smt. Saraswati Devi was serving a sentence in the District Jail, Alwar. While in custody on 01.03.2003, he was severely beaten up by the other prisoners and on the guards of the jail, who were the employees of the State of Rajasthan. As a consequence of the injuries received therein, Ajit Singh, the husband of the respondent died. 3. The writ petition was filed seeking compensation for custodial death. The learned Single Judge, taking into account the entire facts and circumstances and the case law which has developed including the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Death of Sawinder Singh Grover, RE 1995 Supp.(4) SCC 450 ; People's Union for Liberties v. Union of India & Anr., (1997) 3 SCC 433 ; Amitadyuti Kumar v. State of West Bengal & Ors., (2000) 9 SCC 404 and State of Maharashtra v. Christian Community Welfare Council of India & Anr., (2003) 8 SCC 546 , came to the conclusion that the State, appellant herein, is liable to compensate the petitioner and the members of the family of deceased Alit Single for the custodial death and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each to the widow and three minor children. It was further directed that the amount awarded to the children was to be kept In a nationalised bank by way of fixed deposit till the children reach the age of maturity. 4. The principal submission mad by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State Is that even the Hon'ble Supreme Court appearing for the State Is that even the Hon'ble Supreme Court while allowing compensation In the case of People's Union For Civil Liberties (supra), only awarded an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- by way of compensation to the entire family as against Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded by the learned Single Judge to each members of the family. 5. 1,00,000/- by way of compensation to the entire family as against Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded by the learned Single Judge to each members of the family. 5. We have considered the aforesaid submission and we find that In the case of People's Union for Civil Liberties (supra) relied upon by the learned Additional Advocate General, the incident occurred on 03.04.1991 I.e. 12 years prior to the year 2003 when the present incident occurred. In the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the price index and the cost of living, it cannot be said that the amount awarded is highly excessive. At the relevant time as per the prevalent interest rates, an amount kept in fixed deposit was liable to be doubled within a period of approximately five years. Even assuming that Rs. 1,00,000/- was to be kept in the fixed deposit in the year 1991, the same would double to Rs. 2,00,000/- by year 1996 and Rs. 2,00,000/- would further be increased to Rs. 4,00,000/- by 2001 and by 2003, the amount could safely reach approximately to Rs. 5,00,000/- if not more. 6. On the basis of above and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, an award of Rs. 1,00,000/- to each member of the family i.e. respondent Smt. Saraswati Devi and her three of the family i.e. respondent Smt. Saraswati Devi and her three minor children, total into Rs. 4,00,000/- awarded vide judgment dated 12.12.2008, cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be disproportionate or on the higher side even taking into account the judgment relied upon by the learned Additional Advocate General. 7. We find no reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal stand dismissed. 8. As the main appeal has been dismissed, the stay application, application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and application for early hearing also stand disposed of.Appeal Dismissed. *******